SWBTS admitting a Muslim and Patterson trying to cover it up. It makes me wonder if there is more to the story. If there is some unknown motive. It may be typical Patterson to rule in this manner, but this specific behavior is not consistent with him and (I would think) most SWBTS constituency.

SWBTS, among our six Cooperative Program seminaries, is experiencing the most consistent decline in enrollment. I doubt this will help, though additional details will doubtlessly surface that may ameliorate the matter.

If there was good reason to admit a professing Muslim student, and that contrary to established trustee policy, Patterson should have taken the matter to his trustee board, explained why this would be appropriate, and let them approve it, rather than do it and, as is alleged, threaten those who knew with firing.

At some point unlimited power is harmful, but I cannot say we didn't grant a few such.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson responded to recent questions regarding a Muslim student studying at the seminary. He acknowledged that a Palestinian Muslim man was allowed to enroll in the school’s Ph.D. program in archaeology.

“For several years, Southwestern Seminary has operated a dig at Tel Gezer in Israel,” Patterson said. “During that time we have been joined in the effort by around 20 of our own students and about 60 students from secular schools and religious schools. We have had both Israelis and Muslims.

“One of these young men from a Muslim background loved our people and asked to study with us. He accepted the necessity of abiding by our moral code of conduct. He is a man of peace, and we agreed to admit him into the archeology program.”

Patterson said he has made similar exceptions on rare occasions during his presidencies at Southwestern, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Criswell College. He estimated having done so four or five times in his nearly 40 years of academic administration. His intention for the exceptions each time, including this one, was based on a desire to see these individuals understand the good news of Jesus Christ.

“This man's progress has been good,” Patterson said, “and we are especially grateful for the close relations that have been forged with peaceful Muslims and the opportunities that we have had to share biblical truths with them. In all of this there is not even a hint of compromise of our historic position.”

If SWBTS is a church, as I gather Dr. Patterson has argued, and if he is therefore Christ's Vicar in that church, then Wade is spot on. He (Patterson) should run the place by fiat as he wishes, and the SBC should stop funding the outfit. "Cooperating with Mormons and other Great Commission Christians" indeed! Funny.

Southwestern was Patterson's fief from the beginning of the conservative resurgence. Even while he was at Southeastern, he was laying the groundwork, via trustee board choices, for getting the presidency of SWBTS. I think his leadership of the two schools shows the results of two different styles of leadership. At Southeastern, he didn't have a hand picked trustee board, and ran the school administratively within the parameters that policy required. He essentially brought leadership to the school that resulted in its highest enrollment (even without the BA programs) and brought financial stability that it had never known. At Southwestern, where he had a hand picked board when he arrived, he got a school where the enrollment and financial situation was healthy, and attempted to rule by fiat. It hasn't had good results.

This is a problem. A theological seminary isn't an evangelistic ministry, and it's a violation of the wishes of Southern Baptist to hand out grad degrees to Muslims.

Southwestern does not offer a doctorate in Archaeology. It offers a Master of Arts in Archaeology and Biblical Studies, so somewhere in the information that has been shared about the Muslim student, there's an error. There's a consortium of schools involved in the archaeology project at Tel Gezer in Israel and some of them may offer it, but this student is enrolled in Southwestern, from what is being said. To be admitted to Southwestern, under its written policy, you must provide a written testimony of your personal salvation experience and your call to Christian ministry, and have that verified by submitting a recommendation that your church has provided, voted on at a business meeting. So if a Muslim is enrolled, someone had to bypass the written, stated policy of admission approved by the trustees. I would guess that it would require trustee approval to make an exception.

When I was admitted to Southwestern, I had an interview with the director of Admissions which was quite specific regarding my calling to ministry, and what I planned to do in vocational ministry. That is still a requirement. I was told that the reason for the strictness and detail of the interview was because about 80% of the cost of my education at Southwestern was subsidized by the Cooperative Program, and the Southern Baptists who were investing in it were entitled to know that those who were being given this opportunity were genuinely called to ministry service. The percentage of subsidy from the CP per student today is still around 70% of the total cost. So I can't imagine that the trustees would grant some kind of exception to that.

It would be unfortunate for the Muslim student, who has been enrolled in the program, to have his degree program terminated, though I think other arrangements could be made for him to finish his degree. A degree from Southwestern says that the person who earned it has committed to a minimum of five years of Christian vocational or missions ministry. To allow a Muslim to earn one, and use it later on, violates the integrity of what it stands for. As a Southwestern graduate, I am completely opposed to allowing a Muslim to receive a degree, regardless of what field of study it is in.

Big Daddy Weaver wrote:I don't know what one does with a Ph.D. in Archaeology from a seminary, but I hope this brouhaha doesn't result in the school booting the Muslim student. That would be absolutely cruel.

And of course it Paige and crowd hadn't turned the SBC into fundy-land he'd not have to worry about criticism for letting a Muslim study archeology in the first place. You reap what you sow.

Southwestern's admission practices and policies were in effect long before the conservatives became the majority on the trustee boards. Southwestern would not have admitted a Muslim when I was there, and Russell Dilday and the moderates controlled the board. Those rules and policies go back at least to the 1960's, maybe further. So, Timothy, your criticism doesn't hold water.

Sandy wrote:Southwestern's admission practices and policies were in effect long before the conservatives became the majority on the trustee boards. Southwestern would not have admitted a Muslim when I was there, and Russell Dilday and the moderates controlled the board. Those rules and policies go back at least to the 1960's, maybe further. So, Timothy, your criticism doesn't hold water.

Ed: Sandy would Southwestern have admitted a practicing Jewish scholar, when you where there?

Sandy wrote:Southwestern's admission practices and policies were in effect long before the conservatives became the majority on the trustee boards. Southwestern would not have admitted a Muslim when I was there, and Russell Dilday and the moderates controlled the board. Those rules and policies go back at least to the 1960's, maybe further. So, Timothy, your criticism doesn't hold water.

Sandy it isn't the specific policy, it is the attitude. Once you create a repressive attitude where the most conservative answer is always the right answer, right or wrong, then the only way to stay in power or in favor it to move further to the right every time you are asked to take a position.

It also is a reminder that if fundamentalists don't have a moderate or liberal to pick on their attack on of their own.

Sandy wrote:Southwestern's admission practices and policies were in effect long before the conservatives became the majority on the trustee boards. Southwestern would not have admitted a Muslim when I was there, and Russell Dilday and the moderates controlled the board. Those rules and policies go back at least to the 1960's, maybe further. So, Timothy, your criticism doesn't hold water.

Ed: Sandy would Southwestern have admitted a practicing Jewish scholar, when you where there?

It was my understanding that a Christian testimony of both a salvation experience and a specific call to ministry endorsed by a church was a requirement for admission. Southwestern is a seminary, a school whose mission and purpose is to train those who are called to Christian ministry. It is not a divinity school, where Christianity is studied as a "religion" and the graduates may or may not be aiming for a ministry or missions vocation. I am not aware of any Jewish scholar who could give a Christian testimony of salvation and have a call to ministry endorsed by a church.

Timothy Bonney wrote:Sandy it isn't the specific policy, it is the attitude. Once you create a repressive attitude where the most conservative answer is always the right answer, right or wrong, then the only way to stay in power or in favor it to move further to the right every time you are asked to take a position. It also is a reminder that if fundamentalists don't have a moderate or liberal to pick on their attack on of their own.

Even prior to the time that conservatives gained control of the trustee board admitting a muslim to Southwestern would have drawn the same kind of criticism, and the trustee board prior to that time would have been as protective and "restrictive" when it came to their admissions policy. And Wade Burleson is not even close to being a "fundamentalist."

Stephen Fox wrote:Words have meaning and we must be honest about the word Fundamentalist.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a FUNDAMENTALIST denomination.

That was the whole purpose of the Takeover to make sure everybody believed the first eleven chapters of Genesis are History and SCIENCE. That was Pressler's mantra.

All the Creeds and Resolutions are Fundy.

So let's don't change definitions in the middle of the Game.

Agreed Stephen. But that is what has basically happened. After the Takeover those in power retitled it "Conservative Resurgence" which really makes no sense because the entire denomination was "conservative" including the moderates. But the SBC fundamentalists co-opted the term conservative because it sounds better. But also because if they control the word "conservative" they can decide who is and isn't a "conservative" who is and isn't in.

Outside the SBC the same thing has happened with independent fundamentalists and evangelicals. Fundamentalists outside the SBC have taken the term "evangelical" so that now it is almost synonymous with fundamentalist. This is very frustrating to Christians who have always called themselves "evangelicals" but were never fundamentalists.

Of course some of the same folks have done the same thing in the GOP so that unless you are a Tea Party supporter you aren't a conservative such that Ronald Reagan himself would not be able be called a conservative in the current GOP.

Basically, the whole landscape has shifted to the right and all the terminology has been done so as well.

Stephen Fox wrote:Words have meaning and we must be honest about the word Fundamentalist.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a FUNDAMENTALIST denomination.

That was the whole purpose of the Takeover to make sure everybody believed the first eleven chapters of Genesis are History and SCIENCE. That was Pressler's mantra.

All the Creeds and Resolutions are Fundy.

So let's don't change definitions in the middle of the Game.

"Fundamentalist" is a hate word used by those who haven't yet been able to accept the fact that what happened in the SBC between 1979 and 1989 was a realignment of leadership to reflect the prevailing and predominant theological view already present in the churches. Even Molly Worthen points that out.

"Fundamentalists" among the Baptist family of churches and denominations, are self-defined, not labelled by outsiders. When the term is used as a slam or in a critical fashion, it is a clear indication that the user is intentionally biased. Moderates were embittered and had difficulty accepting the fact that their oligarchy lost its grip on the steering wheel of the convention, and used the term "fundamentalist" to attempt to explain away their own weakness, and to cast derision in the direction of those who came into convention leadership.

It would be a pretty easy exercise for a sophomore level Bible class in a Baptist college to distinguish between Fundamentalist Baptists, who are largely independent, and Southern Baptists, who are overwhelmingly conservative. The BFM would never be accepted by fundamentalist Baptists, even as a broad outline of doctrine.

You switch gears so fast, it's hard to keep up. You've been the champion of claiming the conservative resurgence was organized for right wing political reasons and you've provided evidence that it was so, and not very much along doctrinal lines. Now you're claiming Patterson strictly wanted to make sure everyone believed the first eleven chapters of Genesis were history and science. That argument, btw, was settled in the SBC when moderates were in control, long before the conservative resurgence ever ate a beignet in the Cafe Du Monde.

Sandy it can be used as such. But it is also a theological term that had meaning and used to be a word that fundamentalists were proud of when R.A. Torrey penned "The Fundamentals." During the fundamentalist/modernist controversy it was a term embraced by its constituency.

When fundamentalism became political and divisive it took on a negative tone and those in the camp chose to move away from it. So fundamentalism isn't a "hate word" it is a name brand that its original owners want to run from because now that many know what it means and see how at least some fundamentalists act, it isn't attractive to use any longer.

And certainly since the SBC Takeover and similar kinds of moves in denominations like the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, fundamentalists have taken on the reputation of those who force their theological views on other by ecclesial political means. I can understand why fundamentalists would like to rebrand. But the term "conservative" was already taken by those to the left of fundamentalists. So now fundamentalists calling themselves conservatives has just muddies the theological waters.

Sandy wrote:Southwestern does not offer a doctorate in Archaeology. It offers a Master of Arts in Archaeology and Biblical Studies, so somewhere in the information that has been shared about the Muslim student, there's an error.

Here is a question I've not heard an answer to. Why the policy in the first place? What possible had could there be in a Muslim studying at a Baptist seminary? No one is going to mistake him for a Southern Baptist. Why the rule?